What does "moderate" mean again?

Nonsense. That would be like allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
Moderates don't waste their time splitting the difference between two idiotic extremes.
Extremists, by definition, are irrelevant. It's a given that their crackpot notions are always going to be non-starters.
Moderates and other intelligent people base their ideas on reality, common sense and an adult recognition that consensus and cooperation are needed to solve a country's problems.
These qualities don't exist in the extremist mind. For them, it's always a case of "my way or the highway", which is why they can't grasp the concept of moderation.
The only truly intelligent response to extremists is to marginalize them, and if they misbehave, slap them down.

 

That is completely inaccurate.

Both groups want more of their kind of government. Both would use an expanded role for government to further their ideological views of the world.

Moderates are people who are not ideologically driven but are results driven.

Romney and Obama want to find solutions for problems and are willing to ignore ideology to arrive at those solutions.

For Obama it has caused the "left" no end of hair pulling as Obama's "solutions" always seem to end up much closer to the right than they would like. Still they support him because they understand that part of something is better than all of nothing.

For Romney his "moderation" may end up costing him the Republican nomination since the "conservative" base is all about ideological "purity" on each and every issue and there is little room for Romney to attack Obama on an ideological basis.

 

There can't be any 'moderates' left. They voted in the last election for 'Hope and Change'..they won. They apparently got what they had 'Hoped for' and the 'Change' they wanted....right?.....right? I mean, there's a good chance they'll vote for Obama again...for more of that great 'Hope and Change'. Those 'moderates' became liberals by proxy the moment they put their 'x' next to Obama's name.

 

It usually means you believe in some social issues, but not all of them. It also may mean you believe in a strong military, but don't want to see bases all over the world like ancient Rome. It means you are willing to pay a "fair" tax, but not an excessive tax. it means you want the government to control their books like you do...balance them

 

There really is no practical chart for that journey based upon what we know about economics. One way or another, you would see an incredible economic decline to a mid 19th century style economic system. Unfortunately, and my more liberal friend would agree with me on this, if we tried to eliminate the inflationary universe and rid the nation of toxic policies and assets, the majority of the world's wealth would go down in the process. So the question is whether you are content with essentially starting the economy over, or continuing what my friend calls mobonomics.

 

That's actually a reasonable question as their seems to be a lot of confusion about it.
First, there's a BIG difference between an Independent and a Moderate.
Moderates tend to want to see our government improve and change but they don't agree with some of the Extreme measures proposed by either side.
Examples would be:
They want to see something done about health care but don't want the Liberal Public Option.
They want less government but disagree with Conservatives that the SEC should be dissolved (especially after Enron, MCI and Bernie Madoff).

These people are usually demonized by the extremists on either side. People who insist that if you don't blindly follow party / ideology to even extreme levels, you must be "weak" or indecisive. The real whackjobs tend to express open anger at Moderates and usually insult them, simpyl for being people who are basically happy and don't share their extreme views.

Independents are different and tend to anger the extremes even more. We have VERY STRONG views on virtually every issue. They are often in favor of extreme changes. The biggest beef that Extreme Libs and Extreme Conservs have with Indies is that we don't blindly follow one party / ideology.
Personal Examples:
I feel very strongly that unions have contributed as much to our labor problems as executives. They have abused their power and gone way beyond "Fair wage and safe working conditions".
I also feel very strongly that the government has no business telling people who can and cannot realize the benefits of a legally recognized marraige. I don't see it as any business of the government.
Extreme Rights & Lefts will get even more angry with Independents because of our objectivity on their favorite politicians.
For example, LibDems are quick to forgive or even excuse Obama for signing NDAA. I was vicious in my attacks and of course, they threw the anticipated petty insults etc...
On the other side, I give Obama full credit for shfting to the Taliban, following the leads through dozens of Ops, publicly negotiating the release of an undercover American Spy (a first in my lifetime), and then invading a supposed ally who is nuclear and taking out Osama Bin Laden. Conservs love me when I criticize Obama but are even quicker to sling petty insults when I have the gall to acknowledge the few things h'e done well. Or they just assume I must be Liberal.
So again, because we form our opinons based on personal views and not what we're told by FOX or MSNBC, we catch it from both sides. But that's okay, if we weren't stronger and more courageous, we would just follow the masses and let our opinions be formed by LibDem, ConservaRepub or Libertarian handbooks like the extremies of those groups.
I do acknowledge that there are Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians who are all reasonable, civil and intelligent. They're easy to spot. They don't insult others for the sin of coming to personal conclusions or having the gall of simply not wanting all the exact same things as they want.